About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
against violence and rape, for equal pay and educational opportunities. on behalf of civil rights and women's rights. we've shown a bright light on women's rights from the powerful economic interest that profit at women's expense to the relishes fundamentalist. in the fall issue of "ms.," we celebrate these 40 years of impactful reporting. from the very first issue, with the abortion petition signed by 53 prominent women who had abortions when they were illegal to repeal our abortion laws. nearly 15 years before anita hill's fame mouse testimony. to our ground beaking reporting that defined genital mutilation as an international crime against women. to our 1996 look inside the taliban's regime before most of the media had even noticed right up to our 2011 story declaring rape is rape in which we revealed the f.b.i.'s 80-year-old definition of rape under counted rapes in this country by hundreds of thousands every year. that was part of a larger feminist campaign and kicked off a fire storm resulting in 140,000 e-mails and letters to the f.b.i. and attorney general demanding the de
, as the number of briefs that outline for a higher education, business officials, civil rights groups, that outlined support for the use of race at the university of texas, briefs that are in opposition. but broader public opinion, it appears only about a quarter of the u.s. population supports the idea of racial preferences in college admissions. by contrast, in the second set of figures, the blues set of figures, there is broad support among the same set of voters for preference in college admissions based on income. given these results, it is not surprising that ward connerly, who will be on the panel, has been extremely successful in his efforts to ban affirmative action based on race in a number of states. so far, the efforts are 546. -- five for six. five out of six times, voters, when given the option, have said we should and the option of racial affirmative action at colleges and public employment, including blue states like california, michigan, and washington. the second major problem facing affirmative-action, of course, is the legal issue, which will be joined in the fishe
my party on particular issues. >> on that one? on the issue of civil rights? >> i will absolutely differ from my party. i am pro-choice candidate, i believe in equal rights for all. i would have voted to repeal don't ask, don't tell. i don't think we should have discrimination in the military, the workplace or anywhere. >> our next question is to mr. murphy. >> knowing that voters form their opinions based on political ads, how can you justify airing ads that in some cases have been determined by fact checkers to be misleading, confusing, and downright inaccurate? >> the ads that you see on tv for me right now are me in my kitchen talking to voters directly about the differences between me and linda mcmahon on critical issues. i support a middle-class tax cut. when the mcmahon includes a tax cut for the very wealthy. when history is standing up for the people in the state, whether it's taking homeless veterans of the street and giving them housing or fighting for the most vulnerable and the roof over their head because of a disability or mental illness. linda mcmahon has used her
america with his focus on budget, civil rights education and the environment. in the white house he served as director of the office of management budget and his chief of staff brought policies that brought a balanced budget in the 1990's making america stronger. he enabled a response to international terrorism with notable results disrupting and defeating terror networks. as the 2323rd secretary of defense he sought efficient sis while standing resslute in fafere of an adequately funded military. we are pleased to bestow the 2011 award recognizing those outstanding americans who is contributions to the country of security as the total product of our economic intellectual moral strength. secretary panetta. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you so much for this wonderful evening and the chance to enjoy some terrific company and be able to express my deepest gratitude to this organization for all of the great things that it does on behalf of those that serve in our military. bruce, my greatest thanks to you for your kind remarks and your leadership here. and i accept this a
. >> they do that, don't they, with torture? right. does that make it better? >> criminal is very different from civil. and what we -- the precise argument we are making here is that the presumption against application of u.s. law to conduct within foreign sovereigns -- and remember, the purpose of the presumption, justice scalia, is to avoid conflict with foreign sovereigns. there is no foreign sovereign over the high seas. the conflict arises, and the presumption protects against this conflict, when we go into a foreign nation, we project our law. >> i understand that. that's the worst. but i really don't -- you appeal to the general principle of territoriality of our laws. and, as i say, i don't know any other case where that principle allows our securities laws to be applied on the high seas, for example -- >> well -- >> even though they can apply in australia. >> your honor, if you wish to say no extraterritorial application, we think sosa does not foreclose that, because sosa simply said piracy might be one of the actions covered. but i want to get back to the key point, which is -- >
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5